An Olivehurst man who allegedly drugged and raped a college student who became separated from her friends after a Chico party faces 30 years to life in prison.
Sakhone Phienemanh, 28, pleaded not guilty Tuesday in Yuba County Superior Court to four felony counts for two separate acts of sexual assault, including rape and oral copulation by force and of a person too intoxicated to consent.
Judge Julia Scrogin set bail at $500,000 and issued a criminal protective order for the suspect to stay out of Chico and to not contact the woman.
A second suspect remained at large and a multi-agency investigation is underway.
On Saturday, a 20-year-old Chico State University student told deputies she did not consent to getting into a vehicle and traveling to Olivehurst, and she was forced into sexual acts after refusing to participate, according to a declaration for probable cause for arrest filed with the court.
She had become separated from her friends on Friday night after they all left a party to get something to eat, Yuba County Undersheriff Jerry Read said. She remembered being very drunk and recalled some details of fading in and out of consciousness as two men sexually assaulted her in an abandoned home. Deputy District Attorney Shiloh Sorbello said there is evidence that the suspects forced her to ingest cocaine while she was in their control.
She told suspects several times she wanted to leave and eventually fled the house and found a nearby civilian between Second and Third avenues around 6:30 a.m., at which point she called 9-1-1.

Have any feminist bloggers commented on this crime? No, because this is not the kind of rape feminists care about. Sakhone Phienemanh is not himself a university student. He is not white, he is not “privileged,” and his arrest therefore does not merit attention from feminists, because Sakhone Phienemanh does not symbolize the “phallocentric social order” of “male power” that feminist theory identifies as “rape culture.”

Feminist ideology requires that privileged white males be punished for their privilege, which is why a non-existent “campus rape epidemic” has been manufactured by activists, politicians and media. Female students are being encouraged to accuse male students of sexual assault, and university administrators are under pressure to expel male students after disciplinary hearings where the accused student is denied the due-process rights that any ordinary criminal could have in a court trial.

Using federal law (Title IX) as a weapon against male students, campus activists are indoctrinating female students to believe that they are victims of rape if they have any sexual encounter they later regret. This “regret equals rape” formula was exposed in a lawsuit against Washington and Lee University:

Judge Norman K. Moon denied W&L’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing John Doe — as he is referred to in the claim — to continue to seek damages resulting from his expulsion from the university. John believes he was wrongly accused of sexual misconduct, and Moon appears to agree.
On Feb. 8, 2014, John and his eventual accuser, Jane Doe, met at an off-campus party. The two danced, talked and kissed.
The two eventually went back to John’s residence and talked for awhile. Jane then walked over to John and allegedly told him, “I usually don’t have sex with someone I meet on the first night, but you are a really interesting guy.” Jane then began kissing John and the two had sex.
The next morning, John drove Jane home and the two exchanged cellphone numbers. Shortly after the encounter, the two became friends on Facebook. The two exchanged friendly messages.
During the summer of 2014, Jane worked at a women’s clinic that handled sexual assault issues. After speaking to people there about her encounter with John, she began reclassifying the encounter as sexual assault.
When she returned to campus in the fall, Jane claimed on a study abroad application that she had been sexually assaulted. She also attended a presentation by W&L’s Title IX officer Lauren Kozak. Kozak claimed that “regret equals rape,” and introduced the concept as a new idea people were now supporting.
Once Jane learned that John had been accepted into the study abroad program, she filed a sexual assault claim, now eight months after the encounter.

Kozak conducted the investigation. John alleges in his lawsuit that he was given six hours notice to meet with the investigators but was not told why. When John met with Kozak and learned of the allegations against him, he was not shown a copy of Jane’s complaint.
John was denied legal representation, and when he tried to postpone a meeting with Kozak, she allegedly told him: “That’s fine. We’ll just submit the investigation report without your side of the story.”
With this, John was forced to give his side of the story and provide Kozak with a list of potential witnesses. Only two of the four names given were interviewed because, as Kozak would later tell him, she had enough facts.

Even though multiple witnesses contradicted Jane Doe’s account of events, John Doe was expelled from the university, and his lawsuit alleges that he was a victim of illegal gender bias.

A similar dynamic of regret-equals-rape was apparent in another John Doe case, this one involving students at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). Two students engaged in consensual sexual activity in February 2014, but the female student later felt “personal regret for engaging in sexual activity beyond her boundaries,” according to a ruling by Judge Joel Pressman. This led to the typical Title IX process, in which the accused male student was the victim of “fundamental unfairness,” Judge Pressman ruled, because of an inaccurate investigation report presented at a disciplinary hearing where the accused student was prohibited from challenging the the contents of the report. When the student subsequently appealed his suspension, UCSD officials retaliated by increasing the length of his suspension. Mark Hathaway, an attorney for the student, issued a statement after Judge Pressman ruled against UCSD in July:

“It’s encouraging to see courts recognizing that sexual misconduct complaints on campus cannot be resolved at the expense of Constitutional rights and fundamental fairness. . . . Colleges and universities must treat all students fairly, regardless of gender. All too often the male student is just presumed responsible and given no access to any campus resources. Hopefully Judge Pressman’s ruling will help correct the imbalance.”

Feminists deride any concern for “fundamental fairness” to male students facing such accusations, claiming that false accusations are rare and that most rapists go unpunished. Basing their logic on the “1-in-5” statistic — survey data suggesting 19% of female college students are victims of sexual assault — feminists promote the belief that male students are routinely getting away with rape. Therefore, according to the logic of this feminist argument, whatever the risk that any particular male student could be falsely accused, this is outweighed by the risk that a guilty student will never be accused because his victim is intimidated by a “rape culture” that feminists claim protects “male power” on campus. An increase in the number of rape accusations thus becomes a goal unto itself in a feminist crusade which seeks to ensure that an accusation alone is sufficient to guarantee the expulsion of the accused male student.

This is why feminists ignore cases like the reported abduction and rape of the Chico State student. Random criminals can prey on college girls without lending credence to the feminist claims of a “campus rape epidemic,” which is exclusively concerned with punishing male students for engaging in heterosexual activity. Feminists never accuse gay students of “rape culture,” nor can any female student ever be punished for her sexual activity. The punitive force of Title IX is aimed entirely at heterosexual males, who are treated as a suspect class whose mere presence in the university environment poses a menace to women.

By fomenting anti-male paranoia — Fear and Loathing of the Penis! — feminists inspire college girls to resent any expression of sexual interest from their male classmates. Lectures about sexual assault are now mandatory in freshman orientation, and students are also warned against “harassment,” a category of offense so broadly defined that any male student could be at risk of an accusation if he so much as speaks to a female on campus. A pervasive climate of hostility and suspicion between the sexes seems to be the goal of feminist activism on the 21st-century campus, where policies increasingly convey the message that men are unwelcome intruders in the higher education system. Males are already a minority (43%) of U.S. undergraduate enrollment, but this number is apparently still too high to satisfy feminists who are certain that college boys, protected by “male privilege,” routinely perpetrate sexual assault on campus and go unpunished for their crimes.

This punitive attitude toward male students, who are presumed guilty as soon as they are accused, explains why the campus rape cases that make headlines are so often doubtful in nature. In June, Radley Balko asked the obvious question, “Why do high-profile campus rape stories keep falling apart?” Citing several of the most prominent cases — including the rape hoax that Rolling Stone perpetrated at the University of Virginia — Balko wrote:

Each time a new high-profile story falls apart, a larger portion of the public becomes less likely to believe the next one. . . . The anti-campus rape activists often claim that false accusations of sexual assault are practically nonexistent. . . . But that so many of the accusations that they themselves have chosen as emblems of the cause have been proved false or debatable suggests that they’re either wrong about the frequency of false accusations or that the movement itself has had some extraordinarily bad luck.

It is not bad luck that explains this, however, but rather the feminist insistence that accusation should always result in punishment. Activists keep highlighting cases like Emma Sulkowicz’s (the Columbia University student whose protests earned her the derisive nickname “Mattress Girl”) because these were cases in which the accusation did not lead to punishment. Exploiting sympathy for rape victims, and claiming that female students are re-victimized when their accusations are not believed, feminists seized on the Sulkowicz case as proof that “male privilege” protects rapists at elite schools like Columbia. However, when the accused student, Paul Nungesser, made his case in a lawsuit against the university, it was obvious why Nungesser had not been punished. There was exculpatory evidence, in the form of Sulkowicz’s online communications with Nungesser, supporting his claim that Sulkowicz was “a woman scorned” who accused him of rape in an act of revenge for his failing to reciprocate her desire for a continuing romantic relationship. Of course, it is ultimately impossible to know for a fact what transpired privately between Nungesser and Sulkowicz on the night of August 27, 2012, but there was certainly not enough evidence to judge him guilty of rape, and the argument presented in his lawsuit convinced many people that Sulkowicz was simply a vindictive liar.

Feminists continued to celebrate Sulkowicz as a victim even after Nungesser filed his lawsuit, however, because this is practically a religious requirement for the feminist faith: Always believe the victim, no matter how much evidence may indicate she is not a victim at all. In the feminist ideological scheme, all women (collectively) are victims of injustice and oppression for which all men (collectively) share blame. When feminists are pursuing “social justice,” no man is ever completely innocent, and yet some men are more guilty than others. Because abolishing “male power” is feminism’s revolutionary goal, destroying the reputation and career prospects of an Ivy League university student like Paul Nungesser is obvously more important than prosecuting a two-bit street hoodlum who rapes a college girl.

Feminists ignore stories about rape when the perpetrators are common criminals, no matter how horrific their crimes against women may be, because the purpose of feminist rhetoric about rape is not to increase women’s safety, but rather to attack the prestige of successful men. Rape accusations against male students at elite universities serve that feminist purpose in a way that the prosecution of a common criminal does not. Some rape victims therefore don’t really matter to feminists, which is why you have probably never heard of Monika Korra.

In December 2009, Korra was a 20-year-old sophomore at Southern Methodist University. A native of Norway and a member of the SMU women’s cross-country team, Korra attended a party hosted by the school’s soccer team. She and three friends were walking to their car about 1:30 a.m. when three men in an SUV abducted Korra at gunpoint. “Before I knew it, I just had someone grabbing me from behind and I had a gun to my head,” Korra said in an interview with WFAA-TV. “They raped me one at a time, two at a time, three at a time.”

Korra was stripped naked, blindfolded with duct tape and, after being brutally assaulted for more than a hour, was dumped by the side of the road. Korra survived to write a book about her ordeal, but you have never heard of her until now. Why?

Left to right: Arturo Arevalo, Alfonso Zuniga, Luis Zuniga.

The three men who kidnapped and raped Monika Korra — Arturo Arevalo, 29, Alfonso Armendariz Zuniga, 29, and Luis Fernando Zuniga, 27 — were not college students. All three are Mexican citizens, and all of them were believed to be in the U.S. illegally. Arevalo had been deported to Mexico after being arrested on a theft charge in 2001. Arevelo is related by marriage to the other two perpetrators, who are cousins. All three men were arrested within days of their crime (one of them was caught with Korra’s stolen cellphone) and Korra testified at the trials of both Arturo Arevalo and Alfonso Zuniga, who received life sentences, while Luis Zuniga pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Unless you live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, you probably never heard of this crime, and no feminist will ever mention it, because feminists do not care about college girls who are gang-raped at gunpoint by illegal immigrants. No, the only reason feminists pretend to care about female students being raped is because the phony “campus rape epidemic” provides a pretext for demonizing male college students, a justification for “activism” that (not coincidentally) gives feminists more money and political influence. Whatever else feminism is, it is always a cynical hustle, a scam perpetrated by selfish women who will tell whatever lies are necessary to enhance their own lucrative careers, and who will ignore any facts that do not serve their purpose.

Comments

RS

The level of reportage of any heinous event is determined by where the perpetrator and victim fall on the “Hierarchy of Grievance.” It’s like a bridge came with unlimited suits and crazy rules about when you can trump someone else. At the bottom of the list are Caucasians with white females outranking white males. Even then, with a non-Caucasian perp, expiating the sins of “white privilege” necessitates the white female suck it up for social justice.

Joe Joe

A propos: a great debate with the wonderful Wendy McElroy and stupid feminist Jessica Valenti (of Feministing.com). Well worth the watch.

Excellent work. Obviously feminists are trying to make a case for rape culture being far more than mere criminal interactions and so trying to criminalize essentially nothing. Of course we all know that “essentially nothing” is the main territory these harridans operate in.

Fail Burton

I watched that. I read Valenti is threatening to sue to keep it quiet. Don’t know if that’s true.

Daniel Freeman

The more arbitrary the enforcement, the greater the power of the gatekeepers. It’s all about power.

dawnrfields

Work at Home Special Report………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT…nw……

The next “wave” of feminism is SJW. This is particularly interesting and pertains to this article. White feminists from mostly privileged backgrounds are openly encouraging minority men to hate white people…but only white men, because, you know, these special snowflakes are oppressed by white men too.
The 2% or so that by social status may actually be able to protect themselves from the chaos and barbarity of the dystopia they are deliberately creating, will be smirking at the gullible snowflakes who will be ravaged by it. Most amusing of all, the snowflakes will expect the men they betrayed to “man up” and protect them.
Saddest of all, is that minority men were the first to be hurt by feminism and remain the hardest hit by it. I am sure they are happy to have the feminist snowflakes as allies, or something else.
Remind me again why we gave women the vote.